Brackenridge v. Roberts
Texas Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtPierson, J.
Able counsel for plaintiffs in error have filed a motion for rehearing, in which they strenuously argue that this court should render judgment in favor of plaintiffs in error. They say that contestants failed to prove, and were unable to prove, the contents of the so-called revoking will of 1920, and on that account no effect can be given to it whatever, and that without it there is no proof that the 1913 will, offered for probate, was ever revoked, and therefore it should be admitted to probate. Their proposition is, you cannot prove an instrument by proving a part of it, and argue that,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Thomas v. BlackSupreme Court of Missouri · 1892
- Lanham v. LanhamCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1910
- Locust v. RandleCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1907
- Green v. HewettCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1909
3Cited by37 opinions
- Hinson v. HinsonTexas Supreme Court · 1955
- Railroad Commission of Texas v. ShupeeCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1933
- May v. BrownTexas Supreme Court · 1945
- Ashley v. UsherTexas Supreme Court · 1964
- Thompson v. KayTexas Supreme Court · 1934
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.